I hear you! In Modern Warfare 1, they tried to simulate this by having the AI know where you are at all times, so it felt like you were getting shot at by a lot of guys, or that the battlefield was large, but there were really only 5-10 enemies at a time. Actually, it was kind of disconcerting to be in a building, and to walk around in the building, and see the bullets just 'follow' you, since the AI cheats and always knew where you were.

Better AI, larger scale battles at the sake of graphics? Totally agree.

The 360 is about to be 5 years old, This is the time to really shine, most dev are either in their second or third game for the system. I really am not expecting crazy graphics for the the system, but your way sounds like the only to take advantage of what's left.

go look Resistance 2...that game had 3 Tanks, 4 turrets, 30 enemies and 10 allies running and shooting at all times, yet the game is not impressive....

i think that if you want a to see the true power of the 360 you've to have balance between graphic quality, and amount of stuff going on...Killzone 2 is an example of this... in many times, in Kz2 you're fighting against 20 enemies in an epic set piece with 10 allies covering, firing, throwing grenades.... there's a level that really caught my eye....the one in the bridge you've to pass to get into radec academy...that part, has at least 15 enemies, 2 tanks, 10 allies, 1 Sentinel, and environment hazards to play with...such as cars to blow up, barrels, destructible cover/building, multiple paths...and ofc, the "freedom" in that part it's pretty good too...a big bridge with lots of places to hide and bla bla bla

i think that Halo:Reach is one example of this kind of power, the game runs 4 split-screen, big multiplayer, and all with superb graphics that can be compared to killzone 2.